This article advocating "settling" for a not-so-perfect husband has attracted a lot of attention, and there certainly is much to say about it. For some reason, it reminded me of a recent piece by economists Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers, which does one of the best jobs I have seen of summarizing the relationships between economic changes and the family. I find it hard to argue against their observations. Their conclusion:

So what drives modern marriage? We believe that the answer lies in a shift from the family as a forum for shared production, to shared consumption. In case the language of economic lacks romance, let's be clearer: modern marriage is about love and companionship. Most things in life are simply better shared with another person: this ranges from the simple pleasures such as enjoying a movie or a hobby together, to shared social ties such as attending the same church, and finally, to the joint project of bringing up children. Returning to the language of economics, the key today is consumption complementarities - activities that are not only enjoyable, but are more enjoyable when shared with a spouse. We call this new model of sharing our lives "hedonic marriage".

...Thus marriage isn't dead, it is, again, transforming. Hedonic marriage is different from productive marriage. In a world of specialization, the old adage was that "opposites attract," and it made sense for husband and wife to have different interests in different spheres of life. Today, it is more important that we share similar values, enjoy similar activities, and find each other intellectually stimulating. Hedonic marriage leads people to be more likely to marry someone of their similar age, educational background, and even occupation. As likes are increasingly marrying likes, it isn’t surprising that we see increasing political pressure to expand marriage to same-sex couples.

Lori Gottleib summarizes marriage differently:

Once you're married, it's not about whom you want to go on vacation with; it's about whom you want to run a household with. Marriage isn't a passion-fest; it's more like a partnership formed to run a very small, mundane, and often boring nonprofit business. And I mean this in a good way.

If that's not a description of marriage as a "forum for shared production" (at least in the post-industrial age) rather than "hedonic," I'm not sure what is. Her article is all about deemphasizing the hedonic function of marriage in favor of the more prosaic and productive aspects - and not just children, but also the more practical benefits of having a permanent partner. Perhaps her article should have been published at Cato Unbound as a response to Stevenson & Wolfers' piece.